headhasthoughts

billionaires constantly complain about overpopulation

and some complain about underpopulation

either a bunch of people die or a bunch get poor and either way one half of these complaints goes away

if even the winners of the game want it repealed why not

it could be fun

and it worked for the ussr, with only a loss of a few million lives and the gain of millions

this is also true for china

net gain for communist china in citizens

also please start a site with an rss feed collecting kragen notes releases

semantic kragen-web 2.0

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6562018/

Lifespan and metabolic health are influenced by dietary nutrients. Recent studies show that a reduced protein intake or low-protein/high-carbohydrate diet plays a critical role in longevity/metabolic health. Additionally, specific amino acids (AAs), including methionine or branched-chain AAs (BCAAs), are associated with the regulation of lifespan/ageing and metabolism through multiple mechanisms. Therefore, methionine or BCAAs restriction may lead to the benefits on longevity/metabolic health. Moreover, epidemiological studies show that a high intake of animal protein, particularly red meat, which contains high levels of methionine and BCAAs, may be related to the promotion of age-related diseases.

You both should do the bare minimum amount of research before asking these questions or insulting the project. It would take you one whole click to find the server code.

https://github.com/Librum-Reader/Librum-Server

It is correct; the binary is AGPL, and Snap is a binary distribution method.

You, too, are wrong. From Canonical's actual announcement:

Canonical has decided to change the default contributions to the LXD project to AGPLv3 to align with our standard license for server-side code. All Canonical contributions have been relicensed and are now under AGPLv3. Community contributions remain under Apache 2.0.

How has it been a huge boon to the GNU ecosystem? Clang is slow, the code generated is not consistently better than GCC for most of the software I personally run benchmarks for, and it's not like GCC has ever been worse for feature support than a Microsoft compiler.

It's better to point out WebKit.

Pretty sure EMACS beat Kubernetes to the punch. This Helm, too, is pretty old now.

Complaining about names is ridiculous. There are only so many names to go around, and there's almost no overlap in use-case or userbase between a synthesizer and a throwaway piece of business software for Yet Another Soulless Cloud Ecosystem.

Naming things isn't hard. What's hard is that people feel possessive over English words. You probably share your name with hundreds of thousands of people in your country.

[flagged]

“The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling ‘Don’t!’ and ‘Hang on!’, can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.”

-Infinite Jest, David Foster Wallace

r5rs is significantly smaller than Janet.

In your opinion, was O.J. Simpson "cancelled?" Hans Reiser?

At what point do we draw a line and accept that a person can be judged negatively for harm they cause?

Have you considered just getting him a gaming console?

If he's got the degree, he's prepared enough. After he gets a job, you'll be in a position where he won't really be practical to get those "Wow!" gifts for anymore—entry-level salary for new grads is pretty great.

It's basically the last "easy" gift you'll ever be able to get him; past that, everything else will require serious thought if you want to give genuinely meaningful gifts. And there are certainly worse gifts to give someone than something he'll likely use almost every time he gets bored for the next few years.

If you're very insistent on not getting him it though, get him a TAOCP (The Art of Computer Programming, by Donald Knuth) boxed set. This would allow you to line up gifts for future years, too, because TAOCP is not a finished series yet, so there will be new entries for the foreseeable future.

This is a satisfying and well-considered answer. I apologize for being a bit rude to you elsewhere in the thread; I do want you to succeed, but your avoidance of pointing out the missteps in leadership that caused this to happen or explaining why you laid off who you did for which reasons and how it won't ultimately hurt the project in the post & initial comment was a communications misstep.

It's still not as easy to develop for as IRC though.

A very basic IRC client can be made literally with pretty much ten lines, netcat, head, echo, cat and a named pipe. It's not bollocks. IRC is super easy to develop for.

Even doing basic stuff with Matrix, on the other hand, while still better than most, requires a lot more effort. The docs are decent, though.

Would it be accurate to say that you value trust & safety less than any other part of the project? You praise the UX designers, who apparently were not laid off. Is UX more important? Is your job more important? Where on the priority list did it lie?

If it's a core pillar of the project, and the T&S team doesn't exist anymore, is Matrix dead in the water, crumbling before it had even gotten the foundation laid?

Why in the world would anybody use Matrix if you made it closed-source (as you've so cleverly disguised it, """open""" core)? I use it daily to talk to pretty much everyone I know. It isn't as good as other open-core messaging projects. You guys based your entire value pitch on "OtherPlatform but Actually in the Spirit of Open Source."

You aren't as good as Signal at being secure.

https://nebuchadnezzar-megolm.github.io/

You aren't as good as Telegram at being useful or comfortable, and you're especially not as good for groups.

Signal is in practice open core, given how little they do source releases of the server. Telegram keeps their clients open source, mostly, but not the server.

The value you provide is from the fact that it's open source and also easy to develop for, but you aren't even as easy to develop for as IRC.

Laying in bed with the wolves of capitalism is stupid for a project like yours. Bid on government projects and grants, fundraise based on features, or figure out projects that benefit from economies of scale that would leave you competitive (P2P Matrix dedicated hardware would be an easy sell to some governments and much of your audience) while not closed. Don't fool yourself into thinking destroying the thing that makes your creation valuable is the way to succeed. It's not.

If you've already started with layoffs, the damage might already be done.

Bezos got three hundred thousand dollars from his parents to start Amazon. Gates only got the DOS deal because of his mother's connection to IBM. Zuckerberg's mother was a doctor, and his father a dentist. Musk's father owned an emerald mine.

How rich are your parents?

Dworkin had to prostitute herself in order to survive in the 1970s. I think you're barking up the wrong tree. If anyone was sympathetic to the struggle, it was Dworkin. She just acknowledged that it was also harmful and contributing to oppression.

It is impossible for the stock market to be irrational, but individual actors within are often irrational.

Within the game, "the stock market," it is rational. The game is "What do I think other people will pay for this?"

The price of a given stock is always rational under that game.

Your problem is assuming the price is justified based on any particular aspect of any company in question. The answer is almost never "Yes." The price doesn't represent competence, it reflects confidence.

The market is a confidence game, and so the prices are always rational. The game itself is even rational! However, the actors are not always or often rational, and prices are only ever coincidentally (and rarely) aligned with the actual value.

The price going up that much in that short of a time period is very rational, because the price is a function of what others think others are willing to pay for it, rather than trying to reflect anything wider.

Stock prices are speculative. It makes sense because the market wants to buy and sell it at that price.

My view isn't that accounts tied to real people are bad. It's that your lack of ability to think of cases where what you propose could be harmful points to a total lack of critical thought on your part.

The point that I am making is that it's incredibly easy to decipher why "track everyone under every identity they choose" can go wrong and lower the quality of discussion, and specifically, that it's so easy the fact you can't think of a single reason why it's a bad idea to completely eradicate privacy.

If I can find an alt of yours saying that you've quit smoking and then push tantalizing ads to you, you're going to bring me a better return than blind-firing into the American public.

If someone is looking for people who are easy to manipulate in borderline-illegal fashion (let's say, sex crimes), it's a cheat code if they see some throwaway account on HN comment on a post about the treatment of youth, "As a present high school student, I disagree with your statement because..." and track it back to a minor.

What could possibly be the harm in allowing people to harass others based on posts they made decades ago? What could possibly be harmful in making a person who for whatever reason has changed their online identity easier to track? What could be remotely harmful about allowing Marlboro to find the accounts of ex-smokers? What could be the harm in tracking underaged users site by site?

I'm sure this is completely harmless and will not harm society.

Your account is 52 days old, which I will admit is a poor way to estimate how long someone's been around. Look at any old thread around Arc's release and you'll see the comment quality was even lower than here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=106398

It wasn't elaborated on because it wasn't part of the core point of the comment, which was someone claiming falsely that to write Common Lisp you needed to use CLOS, which you absolutely don't.

You wouldn't go into why JavaScript is bad to point out that you don't need to write JavaScript to make a web page. You would just note that JavaScript was a late addition to the web and wasn't the first language usable on it.

Plenty of people were writing CL before CLOS existed.

One sounds like an actual product and the other sounds like an add-on to something else.

"Yahoo Pipes! $7.99 a month with a generous free tier!"

"Mashup Editor included with every Google Cloud subscription above $5/month."

You never want a product to sound like an add-on: Add-ons are low-value and generally used to rent seek off of people who are already locked in. Naming something in a way that it feels like its own standalone product will inspire consumer confidence.

Generic word + descriptor is an easy way to sound like an add-on.

"Video Editor" could be for anything, but is certainly not an independent product.

"Pachi Video Editor" sounds a bit more like its own thing.

"Pachi Cutting Room" is closer to the mark, despite being two words and a company name.

You absolutely can use it without CLOS. It was an afterthought poorly bolted on that was worse than its predecessor in most ways as to be portable. It didn't exist when CLtL1 was written and barely existed when CLtL2 was released.

It's significantly harder to calculate the lower end of the scale: You have to define what a city is to do it.

You can't bootstrap OpenDylan from source without a Dylan compiler. You can bootstrap Gwydion without one with substantial elbow work, which you can then pivot into bootstrapping OpenDylan.

I know what I was doing, and if you look elsewhere in the thread, I was right about what the GUIX maintainer wanted. Not to get egg on your face.

The way you actually have to do it is trawling through git repos to find an old version of Gwydion, bashing at it for a while, and maybe getting it to compile on modern platforms. Look for 2.4, then rewind, then pass a config flag, and a few more steps.

I wouldn't call Dylan thriving, unless you're a Windows user that really doesn't care about bootstrapping your language.

It's alive though, in the same sense that Miles, the dog that Segall froze and then brought back to life in 1987, was alive. Brain damaged, but alive.

Reading this, it feels like you have never touched Common Lisp.

It's not a functional programming language. It's an object-oriented imperative language.